May 19, 2025
Earlier this month, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued a significant decision that holds implications for insurers and their insured contractors and subcontractors, particularly concerning summary judgment procedures in Louisiana. The Court’s ruling in Gregory Chank v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Insurance Company, et. al. underscores a plaintiff’s obligation to present concrete factual evidence to support his or her claims. The decision also highlights a defendant’s ability to succeed on a motion for summary judgment (and avoid trial) by pointing out the absence of such evidence.
By clarifying the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact, this ruling can potentially discourage weak claims from proceeding to trial, thus reducing overall litigation expenses for insurers and their policyholder contractors and subcontractors.
Breaking Down the Chank Decision and Court Ruling
The dispute before the court in Chank arose from whether road signage was inadequate or improperly placed and caused an accident. The defendants alleged an absence of factual support in moving for summary judgment. Id.
In evaluating the burden shifting and evidentiary support requirements needed to defeat summary judgment, the Court noted that “[w]hen a motion for summary judgment is made and supported, an adverse party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or otherwise, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. citing La. C.C.P. art. 967(B). “Once a motion for summary judgment has been properly supported by the moving party, the failure of the non-moving party to produce evidence of a material factual dispute mandates the granting of the motion.” Id.
The Louisiana Supreme Court held that, despite these established principles, the court of appeal “erroneously found that, ‘[a]s the movers, it was DOTD’s and Stripe-A-Zone’s burden to establish that proper signage was in place at the location of the accident.’” Id. The Court declared that “[t]o the contrary… applicants were merely required to point out an absence of evidence sufficient to establish one or more elements of the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense.” Id.
The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to produce factual support sufficient to establish that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the alleged defect (the signage) created an unreasonable risk of harm and was the cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injuries. Id. No such evidence was presented by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated the court of appeal’s judgment and reinstated the district court’s judgment granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Id.
Ruling Impact
The Chank decision will hopefully level the playing field for contractor defendants in the future by buttressing arguments in support of summary judgment on the basis of contractor immunity pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2771 et seq. (akin to Louisiana Revised Statute 32:235(E) at issue in Chank). Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2771 et seq. provides a form of immunity to contractors who perform work according to plans and specifications provided by others.
The Louisiana Supreme Court’s ruling could lead to more efficient and cost-effective resolution of cases for both insurers and their insured contractors, especially when a plaintiff lacks concrete evidence showing a real dispute exists regarding the contractor's work or adherence to plans.
Susan Eccles serves as the partner in charge of the Adams & Reese Baton Rouge office.
Katelin Varnado is a partner in the Adams & Reese Baton Rouge office.